RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much?

RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:08:54 PM)
quote: 3) The only question remaining to be answered is this: why don't you believe the likes of the British Medical Association who have years of extensive resource and research? What exactly do you know that casts doubt on the findings of such respected bodies? Because for every bit of research that says its harmful another one will say it isn't.This sort of thing has been played out for so many years on so many different types of things concidered at one time harmful. Remember butter- so harmful- use marigine- years later- margerine is the harmful one not butter. Sugar isn't good for you use saccharin the sugar substitute- years later they say that is harmful. When there is a sientific study done on humans that have never been outdoors, never breathed the air- have only lived in a atmoshphere of second hand smoke and they all develope serious illness's or die and the only possible cause of that is the second hand smoke. then perhaps it will be proven with out doubt. second hand smoke may be harmful just like the smog is- but to place most of the blame of these illness's soley on second hand smoke and no other life factors is dumb in my opinion. Wait and see in another 10 years we will hear there was a mistake in data and second hand smoke was never as harmful as we'd been told. Given enough time Scientists will add more and more things to the "it is harmful to us" list just about every month on the news there is a study done that this or that is found to be harmful. Thing is- in their studies and tests and experiements they are useing such high amounts of course it shows to be harmful. But the likeyhood any person would ever be in contact with the amounts of their tests with in their lifetime is slim to none.

caitlyn -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:09:17 PM)
I don't know ... but after that show, I put a serious hurt on a grilled chicken salad with ranch dressing. Must have been second hand munchies.

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:14:18 PM)
If you eat Ranch Dressing, with the dairy products and the known issues with them, you might as well just spent your time strangling kittens. We need to ban dairy, because of it's association with obesity and heart disease.

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:15:31 PM)
What are the actual numbers rather than the percentages? One should never trust ratios or percentages because the lower the numbers the more exaggerated the statistics and SID has a very low incidence if I remember correctly.

Sinergy -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking Sorry for the multi-post, but I didn't want to overload the thread. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth By the way, if aspirin were introduced today - it too would not be approved. There are a long list of similar products. There may be a long list of similar products, but I checked with a pharmacist friend of mine and very few have the low number of side effects and the high level of dosage toxicity (the amount of a medicine it takes to actually poison someone) that aspirin does. Aspirin actually does something positive...name one thing that is positive about tobacco usage... I am pretty dead set against smoking, but since you asked... http://ezinearticles.com/?Nicotine-Water---Get-The-Health-Benefits-of-Nicotine-Without-The-Smoke!&id=300139 I read about it being experimented for possible Parkinsons / Alzheimers cure. Sinergy

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:32:48 PM)
You've seen the results of research from well respected bodies and you've seen nothing on this thread to counter this research apart from ifs and buts in a few years time. Take your pick.

swtnsparkling -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:44:46 PM)
Well there were results of research by respected bodies on the butter and sugar also. Still years later it changed so my pick........ I'll take the ifs and buts in a few years time. Put up a post-it note so you dont forget about this because in another 10 years- I wont be here to say "told ya so" Ok this was fun but I've had my fill for this topic. Have a great tommorrow

meatcleaver -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 4:51:38 PM)
Hmm I can think of a few things where respected bodies have changed their minds over the years but this argument really isn't about science, it is about some people disaproving of other people's choices. All the health stuff and the clean air issue are just red herrings. Smoking is bad because it kills but no one would say gay sex is bad because it kills because that isn't PC. You take your pick and you throw in out of context data, info and anecdotes, shake it about and hey presto! It comes out supporting your side of the argument.

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 5:03:56 PM)
Is the problem, that as a people, we are just too much a bunch of pussies to express ourselves and our desires, that we need to have everything legislated? You go somewhere, and someone lights a cigarette. A) MAYBE it would have been nice if they asked, but... B) can you nicely ask them to stop? C) If they stop, then there's no need for a law. D) If they don't are you willing to insist, maybe not-so-kindly? How much? E) Will the cops who get called by the bystanders agree with you? F) Will the judge agree? G) Will the jury? See, I believe that 99.99999% of the time, people will stub it out if asked nicely, the other .00001% probably really deserved a punch in the beak. I've expressed the true pointlessness of the existing, tight legislation and if people wanna throw good tax dollars after bad, diluting the values of good laws, they're going to do it.

adaddysgirl -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 6:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel And once again... not getting it... it isn't about poor choices, it's about the right to decide for yourself. Why don't you just come right out and say it... you do NOT believe that people should have the right to make decisions on their own. Give me the facts, show me the proof and then leave me alone to decide what I want to do. And this is exactly the point. Why doesn't the gov spend money on a nationwide public health channel that educates people (and teens) to the danger of things....but then let them choose for themselves? Give me a station that shows what drugs can do to you, smoking, not wearing a seat belt or helmet, eating fatty foods, etc....then let me decide what is best for me and my children. Holy Jesus....have we really lost all perspective on what freedom of choice means? Same as you Jewel, i raised 3 kids, and i smoked around them all. None of them have any freakin' asthma or allergies or anything like that. my mother is 85 and STILL smokes and she has no breathing disorder. There are 5 of us kids.....and none of us have any asthma, etc. my aunt (my mother's sister) is 80 and still smokes. She has no breathing disorders. She had 4 kids all raised around smoke, and they have no breathing disorders. So why don't we try looking at something else? For one, survival of the fittest. There was a time when if you couldn't deal with your environment, you moved or died. Now we have all the wusses complaining 'oh my gawd...the neighbors are smoking in their house again....and it's really causing me problems'. Well then, fucking move or die! Shit. Back in the day, you probably wouldn't have survived anyway. But no....modern science keeps the sickly alive so they can bitch that they can't stand what anyone else around them does. And secondly, perhaps people should take family lineage into account. Asthma in the family? Cancer? Heart disease? Then don't have kids....and expect that everyone else around should kowtow to their disorder. If my kids couldn't handle cigarette smoke, i would tell them not to go around those who smoke then. Can't hang out because you can't deal with the smoke? Well, go somewhere else then! This is what life is about. If my kids were sickly and smoke was bad for them, then i would most likely work out something else for my smoking. But you can't expect the whole world to change just because you have health issues. Deal with it...figure something out...it's called coping with life. So the freakin' little wuss next door cries out 'Waaahhh, i smell smoke from my next door neighbors house!' Holy Christ ya big baby....quit your whinin'. If it bothers you that much, you probably wouldn't have survived in the real world anyway. i smoke and i would dare to say that i am healthier than (and yes i will say) most non-smokers i know. At almost 50, i am on no medication, my heart is strong, low blood pressure (100/70 and it was lower than that until i took the job with the State), low cholesterol (93)....and i have been smoking since i was 15. You got sickly genes? Blame it on your lineage....not on every other damn thing in this world. And if smoking was so bad.....instead of putting on cigarette packs.....'it MAY contribute to this and that'...why don't they just say it WILL OR DOES contribute to this and that. If all these tests are so conclusive, why not put that? i moved into an apartment complex when my son was 10. There was a child there who was ADD. He was 8 but was big for his age and the same size as my son. Of course...he wanted to play with the other kids...but his 'disorder' just caused all kinds of problems. So his mother would come out and say 'why can't he play with you?'. To which the other kids would respond 'We tried to let him play with us but he keeps walking away from the game and he calls us names.' i did talk to my son about this. He said the same thing.....there is just no playing with him. Everything is just very disruptive. i tried to explain his problem to my son....and my son said that he and the other kids did try to include this kid in their play....but it only ended up with one problem or another. Yet the mother fought to death her son's right to play with the other kids. Would i have wanted that for my son? Hell no! But, if you have ADD, you just may not be able to play with the other kids the way they do. Hard fact of life. And the day i would try to force other kids to play with mine even though he clearly could not operate in that capacity....well, i just wouldn't do it. You are not owed anything because you are sickly or don't like the smell, or whatever. Pretty much, adapt to your surroundings...cope...or move to something more habitable...or die. Expecting every single thing around you to change and adapt to your inabilities is just unrealistic. DG

starshineowned -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/19/2007 8:52:54 PM)
http://sids-network.org/experts/smoking.htm Again..won't disagree that smoking isn't a grand thing but this article sort of puts alittle different tone on the situation regarding smoking and SIDS. Hype..pure scare tatic hype. Anything you do or don't do poses risks to you and your children. This is the nature of life. Your next goal might just as well be to end life period, and not worry about what might or might not kill you. Atleast that way you'd retain control huh. Already it begins with more legislation attempts. Outlawing spanking. Next on the dockets. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 2:00:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl And this is exactly the point. Why doesn't the gov spend money on a nationwide public health channel that educates people (and teens) to the danger of things....but then let them choose for themselves? Give me a station that shows what drugs can do to you, smoking, not wearing a seat belt or helmet, eating fatty foods, etc....then let me decide what is best for me and my children. Holy Jesus....have we really lost all perspective on what freedom of choice means? You have the evidence from respected medical bodies with the resourse and experience to undertake the necessary research. The information you need in order to make an informed decision is on this very thread. As a point of principle, do you think you have the right to endanger another person's health? do you have no desire to act responsibly in the presence of others?

Wildfleurs -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 2:03:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned http://www.edcallahan.com/web110/articles/smoking/cato.htm I’m sure as a woman of your word if you say you aren’t going to participate in a thread anymore that’s what’s going to happen… so I’m sure posting the essay/quasi review of studies was just an accident (and then the other couple of posts after this post also...). But just in case, it’s always worthwhile for people interested in the actual methodology to read the actual report (which is quite different than how its characterized) that is available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5114.pdf In scanning both the CATO piece and the actual CDC report there seem to be a couple of interesting things that popup: The CATO piece brushes over infant mortality calling it either “burn victims or pediatric diseases” rather than even admitting in its tables the actual diseases (SIDS, respiratory distress syndrome, low birth weight, etc), which I found interesting. In fact all of their tables are re-labeled (and at a quick glance some of the numbers look re-calculated) into their own jargon, rather than even providing the original CDC tables. The CDC themselves (like any good research piece) do discuss the limitations of their data but they also conclude that based off of their data the factors that the CATO piece hypothesizes are a huge factor… are in fact not (its an hypothesis when you layer studies from other time periods and data points on top of another study to theorize how one studies population characteristics may change the original studies populations characteristics). The CATO Piece states that the CDC Study did not meet legal standard for Relative Risk (one of the factors in the formula that calculated the disease impact of smoking) of a two or above – yet the piece also states that there have been numerous successful (which there have been, and even more in the years since the article) lawsuits. I just find that literally illogical. I find it interesting that the CATO piece does not provide any actual citations for the studies, in particular some of the studies they mention its not clear if they’ve ever been published (such as a Dr. William Wecker). I’m not going to spend a lot of time on a more significant analysis because I suspect even these few points and actually posting the original study that has the data won’t even matter, it’ll still be some conspiracy by the Man to stop the Constitutionally mandated right to smoke in public. C~

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 2:20:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Already it begins with more legislation attempts. Outlawing spanking. Next on the dockets. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin No it doesn't. Comparing this to BDSM is the usual, well-worn argument attempting to appeal to the emotions of a group of people who feel uneasy about prying eyes in their lifestyle. I'm scratching my head thinking what is so difficult about the following concept: 1) Your second hand smoke in my face is not consensual on my part. You have no right to endanger my health in a shared public space. You respect my wish and I will respect your wishes and ensure I do nothing to endanger your health or make you feel uncomfortable in a shared public space. 2) BDSM is consensual. Conclusion, you have no right to non-consensually endanger the health of another person. Do you see? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that some people on this board do not understand the relationship between freedom, consent and responsibility. Do me the courtesy of answering this: if you and I were in a public space, what would your reaction be if I started verbally abusing you or, even worse, assaulted you? By your logic, I'm well within my rights to do as I please. If you can't respect the wishes of those around you should have no compliants when this is reciprocated.

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 4:29:20 AM)
quote: it’ll still be some conspiracy by the Man to stop the Constitutionally mandated right to smoke in public. ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE, The Constitution does NOT tell us what rights we have. Our rights come from Our Creator. The Constitution tells the Federal Government ONLY what they may do. And since it doesn't say SHIT about telling people they can smoke, drink, etc... ( Remember how Alcohol Prohibition needed an Amendment to give the Feds authority? ), it's not a Federal Case. If people held the Feds to ONLY what they are PERMITTED TO DO by The Constitution, we'd have 1/100th the Federal Employees and a balanced budget.

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 4:31:13 AM)
quote: 1) Your second hand smoke in my face is not consensual on my part. You have no right to endanger my health in a shared public space. You respect my wish and I will respect your wishes and ensure I do nothing to endanger your health or make you feel uncomfortable in a shared public space. How do you handle exposure to Diesel fuel particulates, which in many cases are likely a greater cause of childhood asthma than second hand smoke? They endanger your health and make some feel uncomfortable in a shared public space.

adaddysgirl -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 4:31:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You have the evidence from respected medical bodies with the resourse and experience to undertake the necessary research. The information you need in order to make an informed decision is on this very thread. As a point of principle, do you think you have the right to endanger another person's health? do you have no desire to act responsibly in the presence of others? NG, i have probably said this 100 times but i'll say it again. i have no desire to go blow smoke in some non-smoker's face. i am well beyond the point of thinking we will ever be able to smoke in a public place again. But i will defend to death my right to smoke in my own home and in my own car.....and around my kids (if i had small ones and barring they were sickly) because that is what freedom of choice is. And i will defend to death my right to be entitled to the allowance of some type of establishment that i can gather with others like me and we can smoke our brains out together if we want to....because again, that is my choice....and the presence of the others there is consensual (as i see has come up in a different post). When i have my family over for gatherings, there are times when every single person there smokes. Now i have have to worry that some pansy ass next door neighbor can actually say that i should not be allowed to have such goings on in my house? What the hell is that? i can't have my family over and enjoy time with them like that? And just where should we go? So now we have to worry about the Smoke Nazis banging on our doors "Open up...is someone smoking in there?" You may wish to settle for a life like that but i have no desire to....whether i smoked or not. And i will say this again. i can live with the smoking ban in bars/restaurants if they at least gave smokers some type of alternative to enjoy bars and restaurants as well. And i find it rather interesting that the anti smokers are not at least saying 'Sure, there should be some places for smokers to gather together'. No, because they want the total control and that is it. Screw that! DG

farglebargle -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 4:42:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You have the evidence from respected medical bodies with the resourse and experience to undertake the necessary research. The information you need in order to make an informed decision is on this very thread. As a point of principle, do you think you have the right to endanger another person's health? do you have no desire to act responsibly in the presence of others? NG, i have probably said this 100 times but i'll say it again. i have no desire to go blow smoke in some non-smoker's face. i am well beyond the point of thinking we will ever be able to smoke in a public place again. But i will defend to death my right to smoke in my own home and in my own car.....and around my kids (if i had small ones and barring they were sickly) because that is what freedom of choice is. And i will defend to death my right to be entitled to the allowance of some type of establishment that i can gather with others like me and we can smoke our brains out together if we want to....because again, that is my choice....and the presence of the others there is consensual (as i see has come up in a different post). When i have my family over for gatherings, there are times when every single person there smokes. Now i have have to worry that some pansy ass next door neighbor can actually say that i should not be allowed to have such goings on in my house? What the hell is that? i can't have my family over and enjoy time with them like that? And just where should we go? So now we have to worry about the Smoke Nazis banging on our doors "Open up...is someone smoking in there?" You may wish to settle for a life like that but i have no desire to....whether i smoked or not. And i will say this again. i can live with the smoking ban in bars/restaurants if they at least gave smokers some type of alternative to enjoy bars and restaurants as well. And i find it rather interesting that the anti smokers are not at least saying 'Sure, there should be some places for smokers to gather together'. No, because they want the total control and that is it. Screw that! DG The price of Freedom and Liberty is accepting the risk of other people's Freedom and Liberty. I asked if we, as a people were too big a bunch of pussies to assert ourselves enough to NOT go looking for a law, to relieve ourselves of the PERSONAL responsibility of having to actually ASK someone to put out a smoke. Now I wonder if we've pretty much just forgotten what Freedom IS, and how FREE PEOPLE actually behave. I keep in mind, that the Nazis had 100% obedience when they posted a No Smoking sign. Reductio ad absurdum and all that, but it's true. The effectiveness of prohibitive laws is directly related to the degree of "Freedom" The People identify with. I feel that any TRULY FREE individual will say "Fuck You" just because the idea of knuckling down to some bullshit arbitrary authority distasteful. I mean, if the person who disliked me lighting up whatever didn't have the BALLS to come over themselves and ask me to stop, then why should they get ANY respect? Of course, I'd be an asshole for not ASKING in that case, but hey, it's an artificial example, and maybe it shows that the civility of ASKING which was common once just went the way of the buggy whip when smokes became really common after WW2.

untamedshysub -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 4:56:39 AM)
Smoking around those who dont is purely selfish. As the mom of a child with Asthma I can assure you second hand smoke is very harmful. When we lived in texas could not take her out to eat because it is legal to smoke in resturants. found out the hard way that she cannot handle it. We went out to eat within minutes of entering the resturant we were on our way to the hospital she could not breathe. I use to be a smoker quit 19 years ago another one of my kids the dr told me she was constantly sick becaue of the smoke. So i quit and she cleared up. I have a question for smokers, why do you flick your butts out the car instead of using your ashtray? you dont know what car or truck behind or on side of you may have a gas leak or be full of oxygen like the guy in front of me the other day flicked his butt out the window of his car and the truck next to him said flammable I just wanted to say to him here is your sign. lol

NorthernGent -> RE: Smoking Ban - When is it too much? (1/20/2007 4:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: 1) Your second hand smoke in my face is not consensual on my part. You have no right to endanger my health in a shared public space. You respect my wish and I will respect your wishes and ensure I do nothing to endanger your health or make you feel uncomfortable in a shared public space. How do you handle exposure to Diesel fuel particulates, which in many cases are likely a greater cause of childhood asthma than second hand smoke? They endanger your health and make some feel uncomfortable in a shared public space. Let's finish the conversation on second hand smoke and then move onto transport. There are two issues here: 1) A priniciple i.e. the right not to be endangered by someone else's actions. 2) The practicalities i.e. does second-hand smoke, transport-induced pollution, verbal abuse, physical abuse etc endanger or cause unnecessary distress to the lives of the people around you? Where do you sit with the second-hand smoke discussion in terms of the following: 1) Do you agree you do not have a right to endanger someone else's health with your actions? 2) Some will say they do not need to rely on a higher authority for information. However, in my opinion, it would be foolish to dismiss decades of extensive research from a respected body such as the British Medical Association - we're not experts in every field so we need others to support us with studies (from respected bodies with integrity). What is your opinion on this?

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875